What happens when you stop relying on resumes

So I think that only works if you hire everyone, whether they interview well or not. Or else the process is biasing the results and it's not representative anymore.

If you really wanted to get better information you'd have to go interview people who are already employees at a particular company and have outsiders (people who don't already know them) conduct the interviews. Then when you're done you can compare the simulated hire/no hire results and the interviewers recorded confidence numbers in their evaluation against the performance evaluations of the interviewed employees.

So long as the outsiders conduct many different types of interviews (especially besides what the company normally does) you might get a clearer view into what kind of interviewing works well and what doesn't.

I know some people that applied to and got hired by Google. Google seems painfully aware of how uncorrelated their interviewing process is with their hiring results. The hoops that these guys jumped through I never would. So even if I was talented enough to work at Google (I won't speculate here) they'll never actually be able to hire me unless they actively recruit me and don't make me run the gauntlet.

The whole problem is a really tough nut to crack. I suspect that all the pipelines are going to be biased one way or another. If I were in charge of hiring, I'd want to try and use several of them so as to not miss out on good candidates who are undervalued for whatever reason.

There's a lot of talent out there, despite everyone thinking that there's a talent shortage. The error actually lies in trying to have a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that's definitely not uniform. Companies are failing to adapt to the human-ness of their "human resources" and it's costing them.

Huh? The companies this woman hires for don't look at github? Not looking at public code that someone has published is more broken than relying on resumes. If someone has published code and it doesn't suck, I'll probably bring them in for an on-site, period. I may even tell them that "We're going to talk about "file foo.c in your code where you implemented feature Z. So be prepared."

And, I suspect with startups it was more a case of "How many years were you in government? That would makes us so unhappy that we would leave. Why didn't you?" That's a different way of asking "Is this really the place for you?"

As a hiring manager in a startup, when I knew I only had 9 months of runway without more funding, I'd feel REALLY bad about taking someone with a family away from their very stable job. As someone who has recruited employee single digit, I often have made a point to meet the family when recruiting someone--even if I have to fly to them. I need both the prospective employee and their partner to understand that the big probability is that the company won't be around in 24 months, there won't be any payoff, and a new employment search is likely to be the result. Yeah, there is a small probability that we'll survive and an even smaller probability that we'll get some money. It's a really delicate balance for me, at least, to properly sell the company (Startup! Options! Novel!) and reality (Bankrupt! Flameout! Layoffs!).

I'd say I'm batting about 50%. For every employee I scare off, I absolutely convince one to join. Funnily enough, every single one who didn't run away said the same thing: "My wife told me I had to work with you." They were stunned that someone so important (Hah! Management in a startup is a good way to understand how unimportant you are really quickly ...) would take the time to make sure the family was informed properly about the risks and rewards.